Foreign policy decision-making needs thorough deliberations and orientations.
Discuss
different models of foreign policy decision-making. Give suitable examples from
contemporary world politics.
Foreign policy decision-making is a complex phenomenon in which different actors play a
significant role in the process of decision-making. There are various models which try to explain
this complex phenomenon.
Rational Actor Model:
According to this model, the decision maker is a rational individual who takes the major foreign
policy decisions and the state acts as a unitary actor. The individual would weigh the cost and
benefit of the decision and always try to maximize the benefits for the state. The individual’s
upbringing, culture, values, psychological orientation, and the environment in which the decision
is made, affect the decision-making process. For example, in the case of a crisis like the Cuban
Missile crisis, the decision-makers have limited time to reach a decision. In this model individual
biases, limited access to information, physical and psychological restraints, and international
laws and treaties limit the options for a decision-maker. For example, the role of Vladimir Putin
in the Russian-Ukraine war can be understood under this model. Putin is aware of the NATO
expansion towards its border. He has been warning the west and its allies of expanding its
membership towards the Russian border, yet the NATO members keep expanding and Putin
must launch an attack on Ukraine to show fierce resistance to the western expansion. His
decision to not use nuclear or biological weapons is also a rational decision as it is against
international law, and it might land him in uncharted territory.
Bureaucratic Politics Model:
Unlike the Rational Actor Model which sees the state as a unitary actor, this model sees the
foreign policy decision-making process as a complex process in which various competing
entities are involved. Unlike in the rational actor model, the decisions are made based on
negotiations and consensus of the group of people including the decision makers, pressure
groups, interest groups, general will of the people, cultural biases, diplomatic norms, relative
power and degree of influence in the group. In this model, groups must make compromises and
concessions to reach an agreement over competing issues. Thus, it also explains the occasional
irrational decisions that the decision-makers have to make to assuage other interest groups. For
example, the foreign policy of the president of the United States, Barak Obama. In his election
campaign, he promised to bring back the American armed forces from Afghanistan to home but
he ends up increasing the number of armed forces during his two-term presidency. Moreover, he
had pledged to close the unlawful detention camp, Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba but he could not
succeed in dismantling the camp. These examples explained that the foreign policy decision-
making process does not wholly depend on the actor in charge, rather there are various other
factors which influence the decision-making and the outcomes.
Organizational Process Model:
Unlike the other two models discussed above, this model views government as a mix of powerful
organizations which examines foreign policy decisions as made within the rigid strictures of
bureaucracy where decisions are made according to a standard operating procedure (SOPs). The
decision-makers follow a procedure and a proper chain of command before reaching an
agreement on any issue. For example, a decision regarding Indian Illegally occupied Kashmir
must follow a chain of commands and SOPs. The disadvantage of this process is that in a time
crisis, immediate and important decisions take time as they must follow the procedures. Critics
often bemoan the fact that this model limits individuals’ ability to act, which results in reduced
insight and a lack of alternative perspectives. The organizational process model can also decrease
the overall flexibility of an organization. For example, the foreign policy decision-making
process of Pakistan is an apt example regarding trade policies with the central Asian countries. It
has been a decade that we are unable to sign trade agreements with the central Asian states
despite feasibility reports and huge benefits for Pakistan’s export sector.
Charismatic Model:
This model explains how the personal traits of a leader play an important role in foreign policy
decision-making. The individual’s psychological orientation, upbringing, personality, and public
dealing affect decision-making. For example, the president of the United States Donald Trump
took many decisions which could not be explained by the above-mentioned models. He withdrew
from the Joint Plan of Action (JCPOA), World Health Organization (WHO), and Climate
Change Agreements. He also withdrew American forces from Afghanistan and forced the NATO
members to raise their share to 2% of their Gross Domestic Products otherwise NATO would not
be protecting its member states. He also twitted against Pakistan in the middle of the night saying
that Pakistan had reneged on its promises and did not pay the debts. In all these decisions, there
is a vital role of his personal character which influences the decisions.
